Phoenix faces perhaps their toughest test of the season tomorrow night when the NHL's best team - regardless of what the standings might say - the Chicago Blackhawks come to town.
The Coyotes are in a situation where every game from here on out basically becomes 'the most important game of the season' since their consistently inconsistent brand of hockey has prevented them from capitalizing on the cold streaks of the teams around them. Now, even though the Canucks are tanking, the Wild, Predators, Jets and Stars are all playing decent to great hockey and the playoffs look to be a tougher proposition than they did last month when it looked like the Wild and Coyotes would be battling for the last spot.
Speaking of the Wild, what kind of name is that? Shouldn't there be something after 'wild'? Wild Turkeys? Wild Bats? Something anyway. It's the worse team nickname that I know. Who names their team with an adjective? This is kind of like when you say the same word over and over until it loses meaning, but I just had to double check to make sure that they really were called the Wild, as it suddenly seems so ridiculous. If any Wild fans want to let me in on how the team possibly came up with this name, I would be very interested. Also, was it unanimous? Controversial? What is so wild about Minnesota? I know both Bob Dylan and Prince come from there, so its obviously one of the greatest places on earth, but what's the deal with being called the Wild? (OH and spare me the GOTCHA! tweets about how its actually a noun. I get it. )
Anyways, the Coyotes are going to take on the Blackhawks tomorrow and its not looking good. Watching the Hawks play the Ducks last night was, in comparison to watching the Coyotes and Stars from the other night, like watching teams from a different and better league play. The Hawks are stacked. I count at least four forwards they have who would be the best one on the Coyotes. No matter how many points the Ducks have currently amassed, the Hawks have to be considered the best team in the NHL and the favorites to win the Cup.
One thing about the Blackhawks that makes me sad we live in the salary cap era: If they could have kept Ladd, Byfuglien, Bolland, Versteeg (since reacquired) Brouwer, Burish, Eager, Campbell, Kopecky (and I'm probably missing someone) they might have put together a dynasty team of several Cup wins in a row. I don't think enough was made about how they lost all these guys and still managed to win another Cup. It's really quite amazing.
As to tomorrow night, positives for the Coyotes regarding this game are limited. Smith has been pretty great lately, so that is a factor. Also, they did beat the similarly stacked Penguins last week, so there is hope. The Blackhawks, meanwhile, seem to have righted their ship (winning two in a row) after a rocky patch to end January that saw them lose four in a row and five of six. Of course, the Hawks even do losing steaks in style, as three of those five losses saw them get a point with an OT or shootout loss.
--- Giroux/St.Louis:
Interesting to see Canada select St. Louis over Giroux for the final spot. I would have picked Giroux, based on his leading the league in scoring since December, and his being one of my favorite players, but I have to admit, I don't know what I'm talking about. See, everyone has an opinion, but Team Canada has professional scouts who have been paid to watch these guys in person, multiple times. They have no doubt sat down and analyzed video of all the potential replacements for Stamkos.
This line of reasoning is interesting because when I follow it, I realize that clearly I have not watched enough Philly or Tampa games to have a valid opinion, and I am not a professional scout and I haven't broken down hours of video. In this light it is an obvious choice to yield to the experts. But, does that reasoning stand up?
I mean, clearly Burke and Co. did the same thing when they decided they didn't want Keith Yandle on the USA team. And yet, even though I don't get to watch a ton of Cam Fowler or Paul Martin or whoever, I KNOW that was a terrible move.
Or do I? I mean, clearly I am biased - I write about and follow the Coyotes and see every game Yandle plays, plus, he's also one of my favorite players. I hardly ever watch those other guys. I just am not paid enough to make watching hockey a full time gig. (And that's not a complaint either, just a realistic assessment) I'd love to, but my other job pays the bills. Subsequently, I don't watch enough other teams to have a valid opinion on the skill sets of, say, guys who play for the Hurricanes.
Maybe Burke and Poile got it right. Its fun to have opinions and its certainly necessary to argue about things like this - because just ceding to the experts and professionals is the exact antithesis of journalism - but at the same time, its the proverbial double edge sword because in a lot of cases (especially in hockey where corruption isn't exactly a problem) its worthwhile to realize that the people in charge probably know better than most the people arguing with them. (Clearly this doesn't apply to all journalists. Bob McKenzie, for example, gets paid enough, I assume, to watch enough hockey to have a valid opinion. He also has access to scouts he can talk to directly.)
In this case, after some reflection, it is clear that my choice of Giroux over St.Louis is not based on anything empirical, but rather more so on who I cheer for more and what I know based on un-scientific things like watching highlights, seeing a limited number of their games and their reputations.
And, following this line of reasoning, I hereby remove my objections to Keith Yandle not making the USA team. They might have made a mistake, but it was an educated one, and ultimately, they know more than I do.
Thanks for Reading.
Tweet me: Coyotes1234